Re: boost, BOOST_HAS_VARIADIC_TMPL and std=c++0x

On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 01:08:46PM -0500, Julio Merino wrote:
> > > To be frank, Boost is a constant source of problems on arbitrary
> > > platforms. Sure, by switching to Boost.Config we may uncover
> > > other/more problems, but I don't think it will make things
> > > significantly worse.
> > >
> > > I'd like someone else's opinion on this though before even trying
> > > to make the packages not use the autoconf alternative. Maybe Brook
> > > can comment?
> >
> >My opinion is that given what Boost is, what it does, and the problems
> >to be expected for it, we're better off wiring down its configuration
> > as much as possible.
>
> What are these "problems to be expected"? Sincerely, it sounds
> like FUD to me... and there is already plenty of that surrounding
> Boost. (Yes, yes, some well funded :-P )
Well... Boost does cause problems. Any slight variation in the C++
compiler can and often will make it randomly misbehave.
> Anyway, leaving that aside... I'm all for wiring down the
> configuration as you say. What I'm afraid of is that we are
> intentionally diverging from what others do with Boost, so we are
> probably trying to use the least tested side of their configuration
> and thus exposing us to more problems than necessary...
yeah, I think it's lose-lose.
Perhaps we should file a bunch of upstream bug reports of the form
"your package uses Boost" :-)
> >It's hard enough trying to figure out wtf is
> >going on in the C++ when something fails; wading through to figure out
> >what its configuration system did to you as well will only make it
> >that much worse.
>
> That's not any different than wading through the autoconf stuff
> they have, which is also very "non-standard" and messy (last I
> looked).
But that way it's at least the same from one time to the next. Or at
least, that's what I was thinking. Maybe I don't understand; there's
lots to not understand about Boost too. :-/
--
David A. Holland
dholland%netbsd.org@localhost